Dear colleagues,

Following up on the final point of my presentation [1] at RIPE 90, I would like to invite your feedback on the review of RIPE policy documentation.

Currently, we have multiple policy documents, and we often hear that it can be challenging to identify which document outlines the applicable policy for a specific request.

Additionally, the documents follow different formats, and not all of the content is directly relevant to understanding the core policies.

To address this, it may be beneficial to consolidate policies related to the same topic into a single, clear, and well-structured document.

More specifically we have:

Three policy documents regarding IPv6:

- ripe-738: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy 

(https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-738/)
- ripe-451: IPv6 Address Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points 

(https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-451/)
- ripe-636: IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers in the RIPE Region 

(https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-636/)

Two policy documents regarding transfers:
- ripe-807: RIPE Resource Transfer Policies 

(https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-807/)
- ripe-806: Voluntary Transfer Lock 

(https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-806/)

Two policy documents regarding provider independent resource holders requirements:
- ripe-637: Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region 

(https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-637/)
- ripe-603: Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Resources 

(https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-603/)

In order to avoid generating too much traffic on the APWG ML, I kindly ask that you send your responses directly to me at pdo@ripe.net answering the following questions.

Content structure 

In the new policy document:

A) Would including only the Abstract, Introduction and Policy Text from each existing document be enough?
B) Could each document’s Rationale, Attribution and Acknowledgements be referenced via footnotes?
C) Could the Definitions and Goals be published in a separate document?

Preferred way forward

Which approach would you prefer? 

1) The RIPE community to set up a Task Force to redact new documents
2) The RIPE community to propose new documents for discussion through the PDP
3) The RIPE NCC to propose new documents for discussion through the PDP
4) Another approach (it could be that you are fine with leaving thing as they are, but if you have another idea, please explain)

Please share your thoughts by 31 May. I will compile and summarise the feedback received and share it with the WG.

Thank you in advance for your time and input.

Kind regards,
Angela Dall’Ara

Policy Officer

RIPE NCC

[1] https://ripe90.ripe.net/archives/video/1611/  (from 10:15 )